Answer to: How to deal with a programmer who acts as a proxy for AI?

Obviously you don't need to "prove" what the person is doing - he's doing exactly what the company recently said he should do, which is use AI, so it cannot be beyond countenance that he is in fact doing so. If a number of reviews demonstrate that your colleague is being habitually inefficient or careless with submissions to review, you would invoke the same procedure as if your colleague were being inefficient or careless without AI - namely, a behaviour or competency procedure. Whether you want to invoke that procedure is another question, since such behaviour increases the demand for software experts like yourself to explain to incompetent/devious developers how their AI slop is wrong. Here we see how AI can actually have a negative labour-productivity effect. It's also another question whether there even is such a procedure to invoke. Perhaps the assumption in the past is that developers submitting poor quality would get worn down by knock-backs at review and redoing work, but AI maybe allows your colleague to withstand longer at serving up slop, until perhaps you crack first and get sick of pointing out the defects. Perhaps the next step is opening a conversation with management about how to deal with the particular situation. It's worth noting that review processes themselves are largely a result of employing people who hand-generate slop. Most businesses do not apply two pairs of eyes to code to increase software quality, but so they can cut back on the grade of developers they employ without quality immediately crashing to the level it would if only one low-grade developer were applied to the task. In properly-functioning teams consisting of professionals, there may be general supervision of each others' work, but you wouldn't have everyone checking every piece of code twice in a routine way, any more so than you have two accountants reading every entry the other makes, or two lawyers reading every single email than one writes.